Since the ancients found that buildings can affect sound - hence acoustics - architects have known that the way buildings are constructed can affect the way people think and feel in them. And as science advances, especially neuroscience, the tools available to create new moods through new buildings keep multiplying. This was an interesting discovery:
An experiment conducted at the University of Minnesota asserts that ceiling height can
affect how one thinks. In a series of experiments, people were asked to do perform certain tasks, some of which favored abstract thinking and others favoring detail-oriented thinking. It was found that, in general, people focused more on specifics when the ceiling was eight feet high and more on the abstract when the ceiling was ten feet high. One of the authors of the study, Joan Meyers-Levy, suggested that this has great implications. She suggested that, perhaps, managers would want higher ceilings to think of new, broad initiatives while technicians and engineers might want lower ceilings to help them focus on details.
According to [Jim] Olds, [a neuroscientist at George Mason University], not every design firm is sold on the idea that
architecture affects people on a neurological level. Still, he notes
that what he calls ‘neuromarketting’ is a growing and well funded field
that could well expand into mainstream architecture.
“Well, neuromarketting is a big field and it’s highly funded… And
brain scanning is now replacing the focus group as a way to do
marketing and certainly product placement in a retail space is an
extremely important component of marketing,” said Olds.
Watanabe and Sato [Behav. Processes 47, 1 (1999)] have shown that Java sparrows can discriminate between Bach's French Suite no. 5 in G minor and Arnold Schoenberg's Suite for Piano opus 25. The birds were also able to generalize new music by Bach (Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D major) and Schoenberg (Five Orchestra Pieces, Opus 16) and artists in similar categories, i.e., Vivaldi and Elliott Carter. In these experiments, music by Bach and Vivaldi was considered classical music, while the music of Schoenberg and Carter was considered modern music. Watanabe and Nemoto [Behav. Processes 43, 2 (1998)] have also shown that, given the option of three perches producing either silence, classical, or modern music, the Java sparrows preferred Bach to Schoenberg and Vivaldi to Carter. These results indicate that Java sparrows or songbirds prefer classical to modern music, or perhaps just more harmonious to dissonant sounds. Additionally, the sparrows chose music they 'liked' (e.g., Bach) over silence or music they 'disliked' (e.g., Schoenberg)."
Alex Ross's book of essays on twentieth century music, "The Rest Is Noise," can be found here.
Let me come to your defense on this. The question you asked (Did Bill get to him?) is a valid one. It is a question that will only get someone's knickers in a twist if they have a short memory and/or don't know the facts.
In March of this year when Obama and Clinton were in Selma, Ala. to commemmorate the march, John Lewis was on Obama's side. He was with him at Brown Chapel AME Church and not with Clinton at the First Baptist Church. As I understand it, he (John Lewis) wanted to come out for Obama then, but Bill stepped in to ask him to wait.
I won't go on any further, but I see your question as a good and valid one. To which I'll answer with not Yeah ... but HELL YEAH!!!!
Fading memory has helped some to forget about the Clintons, their political machine and their ruthlessness. A rising black politician in the Democratic party is a threat to them and their power over blacks. So they are doing what they can to crush him, and punish any Democrat who associates with him. As Hillary Clinton's poll numbers rise, her leverage increases. As does the fear of those Democrats who know what follows if they cross the power-couple from Hot Springs. I don't know what prompted Lewis to back Clinton; he marched between Obama and Clinton in Selma, but worshipped with Obama afterwards as you can see above. But I very much doubt that Bill did not have a word with him. Again: the way in which Hillary uses her marriage to advance her own power is striking. No real feminist would do this; only someone who postures as a feminist while using her husband as a tool.
(Photo: Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama speaks with U.S. congressman John Lewis before addressing a crowd gathered for the commemoration of the 1965 Voting Rights March at Brown Chapel AME Church March 4, 2007 in Selma, Alabama. By Scott Olson/Getty.)
Once, whilst drinking with a psycholinguist (say that
after a few pints) I was taught a useful way of quickly working out the
stressed syllable in any English word - something which is apparently
called the 'fuck test'.
Simply insert the word 'fucking' into the word, as if you were using
the swear word for emphasis, and the syllable that follows the
'fucking' is the stressed syllable.
For example, absolutely -> abso-fucking-lutely. The stressed syllable is the third: i.e. absolutely. It works for every multi-syllable word I've found so far.
Which just goes to show that psycholinguists are some of the coolest melonfarmers in the whole of cognitive science.
"Shaker visual poetry" is a phrase used to describe the drawings that the Christian sect of Shakers made under the influence of the Holy Spirit. UbuWeb explains:
Between 1837 and 1850 ("known as the Era of Manifestations") the Shakers composed (or were the recipients of) "hundreds of … visionary drawings … really [spiritual] messages in pictorial form," writes Edward Deming Andrews (The Gift To Be Simple, 1940). "The designers of these symbolic documents felt their work was controlled by supernatural agencies … — gifts bestowed on some individual in the order (usually not the one who made the drawing." The same is true of the "gift songs" and other verbal works, and the invention of forms in both the songs and drawings is extraordinary, as is their resemblance to the practice of later poets and artists.
The above, from the early 1840s, is just one of many such "drawings."
Giuliani 100 percent. He takes no prisoners; he took down the entire mob. He's easily vilified. He's the most gangster. But I wouldn't vote for him; he scares me.
Scares you? Apart from removing your constitutional rights and nuking Iran, what have you got to be scared of? Oh, yeah: David Frum.
Why have Roman Catholics historically been more reluctant to view gambling as a sin than Protestants — but then again, why have even Protestants opted to raise money through bingo? Are people who gamble responsible for the consequences of their own behavior, or is gambling evidence of an addiction? Why are poker tournaments and lotteries considered gambling, but investing in the stock market or real estate is not? Are we really witnessing something new here, or have Americans always been gamblers? Is gambling more harmful to women than men, and therefore a feminist issue? Is gambling rational? Is it glamorous? What does the popularity of gambling say about American attitudes toward thrift, and if American views of thrift are changing, what implications follow for the study of American values? Are younger people more or less attracted to gambling than their elders?
The Brits have no such conflicts. They'll bet on anything.
Well, this is easily the most controversial window view I've ever published. I did due diligence in trying to figure out where it was exactly, and have decided to leave it at Jerusalem and remove the moniker Palestine. One reader objected here. Here's another reader:
Just a quick note since my nephew lives in Har Homa. It is beyond the Green Line which generally is considered Palestinian territory, subject to final negotiations , of course. It was built along with other settlements to provide an iron clad barrier of Jews around Jerusalem. It's purpose is to prevent the division of Jerusalem.
While your reader is correct that Har Homa falls within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, what he fails to admit to is those boundaries were expanded in various stages unilaterally by Israel between 1967 and 1993. These boundaries far, far, far exceed anything in the past and in fact extend right up to the city of Ramallah.
Har Homa is a settlement and that is how its residents feel about it. My nephew and his family moved there from Ariel with the express purpose of preventing the division of Jerusalem and preventing Palestinian access.
I have to seriously take issue with the anti-Obama sentiment expressed by some of your black readers. I myself am black and college educated, but what I want to ask them is...what is it that you see in Hillary that makes her more substantial than Obama? That she's a senator? What's Obama? That she got shelled by the Right for a number of real or imagined sins and lived to fight another day? Is it that she's been First Lady (or is that she's married to the unofficial "first black president")? I have no problems with Hillary, and I like Bill quite a bit (and I'm not blind to his personal failings) and I fully agree that blacks shouldn't vote for Obama just because he's black, but at the same time, how does one come to the conclusion that Obama is, "NOT a serious person"? I didn't know that a former editor of the Harvard Law Review was lacking in substance or "seriousness" (which is one of the most arbitrary characteristics in our political discourse at the moment anyway, but that's another matter).
It is troubling to me that some would still hold up Colin Powell as "serious" when he went against his own judgment and helped deliver the Bush Administration the war it so very wanted with his U.N. presentation. However, Obama, a man who called what was to come with crystal clear accuracy back when speaking ill of the war was being equated to treason, is not serious. Speaking unpleasant truth to power is serious. Having the courage of your convictions is serious.
"Who Else Should Al Gore Share the Prize With? How about that well known peace campaigner Osama Bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore's stance - and that of the Nobel committee - in his September rant from the cave?" - Iain Murray, National Review.
I can't say I read him very often but I came across this chilling post of his from last week. It's an attack on any independent thought outside of the situational demands of a political coalition. It is a full-throated and not-even-regretful support for the subjugation of free inquiry and free ideas to the demands of political organization. It makes Sidney Blumenthal seem intellectually honest. Money quote:
Roger Cohen may feel like he is a liberal hawk, and thus distinct. But what Roger Cohen feels does not matter, because Roger Cohen does not control any branch of the American military. Who he empowers, and which actors in American politics find their ideas legitimized by his columns, is all that matters. And in that, he is worse than a neoconservative. He's a liberal hawk who knows better, but whose interest in writing about his own virtue overwhelms his judgments concerning the actual actions of those who wield power. He is not a neoconservative. He is a narcissist.
Klein slips in a bogus word here: feels. Cohen doesn't feel he is a liberal hawk; he believes he is. He has arguments to make, arguments that can be agreed with or disagreed with, but that have merits of their own that should be addressed regardless of the arrangement of political power at the time. This isn't narcissism; it is the duty of any writer and thinker to state his own views as best he can without concern for how the world might greet them, who might use them unfairly, or who might expropriate them for insincere purposes. Without this independence, a writer is merely a hack. Or, worse for a writer, an activist.
The right has its apparatchiks. The left does too. And when you are as young and as able as Klein and have already sacrificed even an attempt to think for yourself in favor of the demands of party and faction ... well, it's just really, really depressing. But he is not alone, as any perusal of many writers for National Review, Red State or HuffPuff and Kos will see.
Have I irritated enough Democrats today? Here are a couple of dyspeptic splutters on Gore's Nobel - Jim Henley and Damian Thompson. I admire Gore in many ways - especially his knowledge of science and his concern with civil liberties. But he's also insufferable. And can you imagine how more pompous he's going to be now?
He loves it - almost as much as he loves exercizing unchecked, unaccountable executive power. From the Council on Foreign Relations:
The "state secrets" privilege allows the sitting U.S. president to nearly unilaterally withhold documents from the courts, Congress and the public. At the height of the Cold War, the administration used the privilege only 6 times between 1953 and 1976. Since 2001, it has been used a reported 39 times….
Why do you see it as some sort of hostility if an African-American decides not to endorse Obama? This is actually the subtle form of racism we still have to go through daily. All Blacks in their right mind have to go for the Black in the race. Do you have the same standards for any other group or any other race? Moreover, your little question if Bill got to him is as insulting as it gets. You mean an adult Black man cannot make a decision on his own? At least Bill O'Reilly 'recognized' a couple of days ago that "Blacks are starting to think for themselves". But I see we still have a long way to go.
John Lewis is a titan of the civil rights movement. Of course he can think for himself. But the Clintons still ruthelessly pressure those they can. And an endorsement at this stage from a man of Lewis's stature is more than an endorsement of Clinton. It's a racial body-blow to Obama. And it's not racist to recognize that. One of the more fascinating aspects of this race is the reluctance of so many African-Americans to support the most plausible black candidate for president in history.
Matt Yglesias worries about Michael Rubin's joining the Giuliani campaign. David Frum joined up too, we're told. Those who believe neoconservatism is dead are not paying attention. If Giuliani is elected, Bush will begin to look like a realist. And your civil liberties will be over.
Five-year-old Alex Wall, of Norfolk, proudly wears his fathers medals as he searches for his father's name on the wall of the Armed Forces Memorial on October 12, 2007, Lichfield, England. Warrant Officer Colin Wall of the Royal Military Police was killed in Iraq in 2003. The six million GBP memorial, built in the grounds of The National Memorial Arboretum, is due to be opened by HM The Queen today, seven years after the initial idea by the ministry of defence. The memorial honours people killed on duty or as a result of terrorist action since the end of World War II. So far over 15,000 names have been carved in the Portland stone with room for more. By Christopher Furlong/Getty Images.
I’m confident that you’ll hear from many on this, but I must take issue with today’s “The View From Your Window” picture listing Har Homa: (a) as a settlement; (b) in "Palestine." My objections are as follows:
1) "Palestine": Currently there is no State of Palestine. The name of the territory administered by the Palestinian Authority is the "Palestinian Territories," not Palestine. So even if I was to concede (and I don’t; see #2 below) that Har Homa was not in Jerusalem, Israel, it would be in the Palestinian Territories, not a State of Palestine.
2) “Settlement”: While certainly there are settlements in the West Bank (such as Ariel, Beit El, Efrat, etc.), Har Homa is not one of them. Its 460 acres is entirely within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.
Editor's Note: In our print edition, several captions for the photographs accompanying this report were inadvertently
transposed. Martin Kramer's photograph is identified as Norman
Podhoretz; Daniel Pipes's photograph is identified as Kramer; Peter
Berkowitz's photograph is identified as Pipes; Nile Gardiner's
photograph is identified as Berkowitz's and Podhoretz's photograph is
identified as Gardiner's. NEWSWEEK regrets the errors.
I hear all sorts of stories of internal warfare at the CIA over the order to subject prisoners to treatment more suitable to the Soviet Union than the United States. Ken Silverstein adds this nugget:
[I]t turns out that a former senior CIA legal official quit in protest
over the administration’s use of “enhanced interrogations.” This
official, whose name I have promised not to publish, previously worked
as a deputy IG for investigations under Frederick Hitz, who served as
CIA IG between 1990 and 1998. From there, the official moved on the
CIA’s Office of General Counsel.
What’s
interesting is that this official was generally known as something of a
hardliner. I haven’t been able to pin down the date of his departure,
which may have occurred a year ago or more. However, the sources tell
me he couldn’t stomach what he deemed to be abuses by the Bush
Administration and stepped down from his post.
A fascinating study finds that poor urban kids do no better in private than in public high schools, when all other factors are taken into account. The exception? Catholic parochial schools, run by the Jesuits, with considerable autonomy. It doesn't surprise me.
Well, the good news from the Shiite population has to be balanced by the grim UN report - delayed till after last month's Congressional debate at the request of Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It's grueling. The treatment of prisoners in Iraq is now almost as bad as under Saddam, and it is ultimately America's responsibility:
Among the most serious issues raised in the report is the treatment of
detainees. The U.N. agency found that as of June, 44,325 detainees were
in Iraqi or U.S. custody, an increase of nearly 4,000 people since
April. Many of them, it said, remained in detention for months without
having their cases reviewed or with limited access to legal counsel.
The report also expressed concerns about overcrowding and poor hygiene
in detention centers, particularly pretrial holding cells run by the
Interior Ministry in Baghdad. The agency said it "remained gravely
concerned at continuing reports of the widespread and routine torture
or ill-treatment of detainees."
"In addition to routine beatings with hosepipes, cables and other
implements, the methods cited included prolonged suspension from the
limbs in contorted and painful positions for extended periods,
sometimes resulting in dislocation of the joints; electric shocks to
sensitive parts of the body; the breaking of limbs; forcing detainees
to sit on sharp objects, causing serious injury and heightening the
risk of infection; and severe burns to parts of the body through the
application of heated implements," the report said.
If any of us who supported the war had been told this would be the result four years later, we would surely have said: not on these terms, not by these methods.
Who hated Tolstokozhev so much as to hire a hit man to assasinate him? Well, I guess you have about one billion e-mail users to suspect. Tolstokozhev was a famous spammer who sent millions of e-mail promoting viagra, cialis, penis enlargement pills and other medications. Links in these e-mails usually led to some pharmacy shop, which paid Tolstokozhev a share of its revenue. This is a well known affiliate scheme employed by spammers worldwide. Tolstokozhev is estimated to be responsible for up to 30% percent of all viagra and penis enlargement related spam. … How profitable is spam? Well, the authorities say that Tolstokozhev has likely made more than $2 million in 2007 alone. (In comparison: average russian monthly salary is $400).
Jealousy? In today's mafia-run Russia, who knows? A rough translation of Tolstokozhev is "thick skin."
It's not clear what this means for what's left of the Iraqi polity, but it seems like good news to me:
While the Mahdi militia still controls most Shiite neighborhoods, early evidence that Shiites are starting to oppose some parts of the militia is surfacing on American bases. Shiite sheiks, the militia’s traditional base, are beginning to contact Americans, much as Sunni tribes reached out early this year, refocusing one entire front of the war, officials said, and the number of accurate tips flowing into American bases has soared.
Shiites are "participating like they never have before," said Maj. Mark Brady, of the Multi-National Division-Baghdad Reconciliation and Engagement Cell, which works with tribes.
"Something has got to be not right if they are going to risk calling a tips hot line or approaching a J.S.S.,” he said, referring to the Joint Security Stations, the American neighborhood mini-bases set up after the troop increase this year.
“Everything is changing," said Ali, a businessman in the heavily Shiite neighborhood of Ur, in eastern Baghdad, who, like most of those interviewed, did not want his full name used for fear of being attacked. “Now in our area for the first time everyone say, ‘To hell with Mahdi Army.'"
Maybe the occupation will slowly become less onerous, as the resident assholes overplay their hand. Here's hoping.
That's Victor Davis Hanson's view of what General Petraeus has to grapple with in Iraq. Funny VDH did not make this case during the September debate about the surge. I wonder what would have happened if the pro-war right had described the war-aims as "near-impossible" when it mattered.
A couple of months ago, Senator Clinton called me "naïve and irresponsible" for taking this position, and said that we could lose propaganda battles if we met with leaders we didn't like. Just yesterday, though, she called for diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. So I'm not sure if any of us knows exactly where she stands on this. But I can tell you this: when I am President of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand.
China turned against the Burmese government last night and supported a
UN security council statement rebuking the military regime for its
suppression of peaceful protests, and demanding the release of all
political prisoners.
The security council statement, which also
called for "genuine dialogue" with the opposition leader, Aung San Suu
Kyi, marked the first time that Beijing had agreed to UN criticism of
the junta.
The statement did not threaten sanctions, but the
significance of its unanimous support by all 15 members of the security
council would not have been lost on Burma's generals, who had hitherto
been able to count on China, a neighbour and key trading partner, to
block UN censure.
A military blogger vents at a recent NYT piece on private military contractors:
Nowhere do they bring up how contractors have the ability to directly and immediately influence U.S. foreign policy, national security, and public diplomacy. Think Fallujah and the decision to "teach them a lesson" for dragging and stringing up contractors, against the recommendations of the commanders on the ground. War today isn't about personal enmity, which is what came into play in the aftermath of Fallujah as a result of a company going cheap and going stupid in trying to escort kitchen goods. The end result? We lost prestige, high-ground, trust, and possibly the war. Not because the contractors were there, but because we allowed them to remain outside of our mission and we maintained separate civil and military operations.
Here's a sign that Obama's attack on Clinton's support for a resolution chracterizing Iran's Revolutinoary Guards as a terrorist entity may be worrying the Clinton campaign: she has now decided to adopt Obama's position on being open to negotiations with Iran. The key phrase is "without conditions."
We just want to reiterate that Giuliani is a disaster ... He will destroy the coalition among conservatives. Asking us to accept him as the nominees, is like asking fiscal conservatives to accept a candidate who wants to return to the tax rates of the pre-Reagan era.
How about asking fiscal conservatives to support a president who increased government spending at a faster rate than any Democrat since FDR?
One aspect is revealed in a paragraph like this in Salon. It's directed at John Aravosis because he dared to question whether a Congressional bill on workplace discrimination should be postponed because it doesn't include transgendered rights:
This coming from an ex-Republican, former congressional aide, Georgetown-educated, inside-the-Beltway lawyer who studied under Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and who has spent the past decade working his political connections in order to hold corporate America's feet to the fire on gay rights? Puh. Leeze. John Aravosis is in the nosebleed section of the social hierarchy; if he gets any higher up the food chain he should be issued an oxygen mask.
This ad hominem attack on anyone's views who veers from far left orthodoxy is routine among the professional GBLTXYZers who mau-mau the rest of us. John Aravosis is an almost pathologically partisan Democrat, a gleeful outer of insufficiently correct closeted public figures, a blogger in the mold of Atrios ... but he still can't be oppressed enough to be valid for the gay left. Hey, John. It's wake-up time. They hate you too. Welcome to the club.
As for the matter at hand, the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, I was told two decades ago that this was the non-negotiable number one priority for gay Americans, that gay people couldn't afford to fight for marriage equality or military service or anything else until this vital law passed.
I completely agree with your recent emailer. I am black, well educated (with three degrees in economics, political science about to graduate from law school). I take politics seriously, and I don't know many serious black people who support Obama. We are not impressed by his credentials - because we also have similar credentials. Will you and the media support David Vitter just because he went to Harvard Law School? Or Elaine Chao because she has an MBA from Harvard. The racism - I fear is on the foot of those knee-jerk liberals and ex-Neo cons who are flocking to Obamamania. Obama is simply NOT a serious person. Ron Paul, yes. But not Obama. Obama is no Colin Powell. Does he even qualify to be CEO of a major American corporation, let alone President of these United States.
By the way what major policy reform has Obama proposed anyway? If he is really incensed about Iraq, why doesn't he stage a filibuster? Has he not watched "Mr Smith Goes to Washington." Hillary might be a closet conservative, but at least she is not pretending that she is the only Ivy leagued educated woman in America.
It's only fair to point out that Obama has presented serious, complex initiatives on healthcare, energy, the environment, taxes and the war. But I am struck by the hostility toward him from some African-Americans. The reasons for it may be as fascinating as they are poorly understood.
October 7, 2007 - October 13, 2007
Site Meter 
